Author: Christophe Theron
Date: 18:01:38 12/14/00
Go up one level in this thread
On December 13, 2000 at 23:38:41, Laurence Chen wrote:
>In this position Shredder 5 played the losing move 36. h4??, it could have drawn
>the game with the move 36. g3! It took Shredder at least 30 min. in my Pentium
>III 600e with 128 MB Hash Table to evaluate the position as close to 0.00
>(-0.01), it took Hiarcs 7.32 a few seconds to find 36. g3!, however the
>evaluation was -0.76. Perhaps Shredder 5 will benefit the most on a super fast
>computer and at a longer time control.
I don't see any reason to believe that Shredder would benefit more from faster
computers.
I'm always very skeptical when I read such claims. In the past it has always
been used as an excuse for programs that were allegedly very strong but failed
to demonstrate it.
Dig into the CCC archives and check what I say.
The escape was always "it will be better with faster computers or with longer
time controls". Which is an easy escape, because at the time the faster
computers were available a new version of the program was available too, so it
was then out of question to test the older one.
I want to say that this is not an attack against Shredder. This program is
strong, and does not need IMO the "benefits more from faster computers" excuse.
But I read this unjustified excuse so often that I think it's time to react.
Christophe
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.